Status report and Discussion paper for Number of tests WLTP IWG at Geneva in June JAPAN WLTP-11-20e

Status report The criterion to use declared value is a still controversial issue. In the Stockholm meeting (#10IWG), Japan proposed the compromised criteria which was to set both dCO2_1(criteria for first test) and dCO2_2(criteria for second test) to be zero. Which means the manufacturer’s declared CO2 is acceptable as final value if the test result was equal or better than the declared value. In the Stockholm meeting, IWG decided to ask each contracting party to respond their position by the next TF meeting. Proposed option were, – Option A: Both dCO2_1 and dCO2_2 to be zero. – Option B: Two separate criteria, one for independent lab and the other for non-independent lab( e.g. manufacturer lab). – Option C: Leave dCO2_1 and dCO2_2 to be a regional option. In the TF web meeting (18th, May), EU stated that they would like the option C with lower limit of -1% for dCO2_1 and -0.5% for dCO2_2 (e.g. EU -1% and -0.5%,and Japan 2% and 1%), while Japan prefers option A. (waiting for the other CP’s stance.) Which selectable mode should be use for criteria pollutant testing, either predominate mode or emission worst mode is still open issue. We also have other issues, criterion for EVs (range criterion included) and averaging method for final value determination. We are expecting finalizing all these issues by #12 IWG as planed.

Discussion paper

EU proposal for CO2Japan proposal for CO2 1st 84% fail, 16% pass = 84% of vehicles need two or three tests. 50% fail, 50% pass 2nd 64% fail (=76%x84%), 36% pass (=24%x84%+16%) = 64% of vehicles need three tests. 25% fail,75% pass, including first test 3rd Average of three. EU and Japan proposal for ICE Use declared value Declared - 0.9%(σ) 16% %(σ/2) 24% [%] +/- 0.0% 1st test (dCO2_1)2nd test (dCO2_2)1st and 2nd test Use declared value

expected number of tests for ICE Assumptions for calculation; Average (µ) = 0 Standard deviation (σ) = 0.9 % Judgment for second test is based on the average value of first and second tests. (i.e. σ for second test = 0.9/root (2) %) Initial JPN proposal dCO2_1 [σ] dCO2_2 [σ] EU proposal Expected Number of tests Current JPN proposal

EU position Conclusions The Commission services recognize that the differences of the EU and Japan views for the values for d CO2 1 and d CO2 2 mainly result from differences in the certification systems. In the EU the type approval tests are largely under the control of the manufacturer, since they are performed in close collaboration with a technical service, who is contracted by the manufacturer and will therefore act in the interest of the manufacturer (within the legal limits of course). As a consequence the statistical analysis of tests used for type approval purposes cannot be considered as fully random (e.g. if a test does not deliver the result "expected" by the manufacturer it can simply be disregarded and repeated). In Japan the certification testing is in the hands of a single public body. As a consequence the Commission services recommend the following: The WLTP GTR should specify lower limit values d CO2 1 = -1% and d CO2 2 = -0,5%, which are considered as appropriate for the EU following the JRC analysis. Contracting parties may specify values for regional regulatory purposes: d CO2 1 (reg) d CO2 1 and d CO2 2 (reg) d CO2 2, e.g. d CO2 1 (Japan) = 2% and d CO2 2 (Japan) = 1% (or any other values that seem to be appropriate) from Mr. Steininger on 14th May CP option with Lower limit (dCO2_1 = -1%, dCO2_2= -0.5% ）

Japan position CP option with, Upper limit (dCO2_1 = 1.8%, dCO2_2= 1.8% ） and Lower limit (dCO2_1 = -1%, dCO2_2= -0.5% ）

The other issues for OIL#27

#27-1 criteria values Criteria pollutants CO2 related: CO2/FC/EC Range: AER/EAER/Rcda ICE NOVC HEV OVC HEV CS dp1: -10% dp2: 0% dco2_1: CP option Lower limit: -1.0%. Upper limit: +1.8% dco2_2: CP option Lower limit: -0.5%. Upper limit: +1.8% N/A OVC HEV CDdp1: 0% N/Adr1: 0% dr2: 0% PEVN/A dr1: 0% dr2: 0% d: Proposal for discussion c: Proposal for discussion a: Values seems agreed to be in GTR. b: Proposal for discussion

1st test (R1) 2nd test (R2) yes no R1 accepted Flow A: Criteria pollutants Rejected yes (R1 + R2)/2 accepted #27-2 Number of flows and parameters no R1 > EM Limit R1 ≦ EM Limit x 0.9 R2 > EM Limit 1st test (R1) Rejected yes R1 accepted no R1 > EM Limit For ICE, NOVC HEV and OVC HEV CSFor OVC HEV CD only Note: R1 is a emission component (cycle value) which is closest to the limit in percentage. Note: This flowchart is applicable only if the CD contains two or more WLTC cycles. R1 is emission result for each cycle in CD test ( cycle value).

1st test (R1) 2nd test (R2) 3rd test (R3) yes (R1+R2+R3)/3 accepted Declared value accepted Flow B: CO2/FC/ECFlow C: AER/EAER/Rcda Parameter used for the flow; “EC” for PEV. “CO2” for the others. Parameter used for the flow; “AER” for all vehicles. 1)R1 and R2 are cycle value ( not phase value). R1 ≦ （ Declared + dco2_1) (R1+R2)/2 ≦ （ Declared + dco2_2) yes 1st test (R1) 2nd test (R2) 3rd test (R3) yes (R1+R2+R3)/3 accepted Declared value accepted 1)R1 and R2 are cycle value ( not phase value). R1 ≧ （ Declared - dr_1) (R1+R2)/2 ≧ （ Declared - dr_2) yes

#27-3 Averaging method Criteria pollutants CO2/FC/ECAER/EAER/Rcd a #1: Cycle average value for the re-test judgment after second test. ICE, NOVC HEV OVC HEV CS (R1+R2)/2 (= final value) (R1+R2)/2N/A OVC HEV CD N/A (only one test is required) (R1+R2)/2 PEVN/A(R1+R2)/2 #2: Cycle average value as final value after third test. ICE, NOVC HEV OVC HEV CS N/A (maximum two tests are required) (R1+R2+R3)/3N/A OVC HEV CD N/A (only one test is required) (R1+R2+R3)/3 PEVN/A(R1+R2+R3)/3

#27-3 Averaging method Criteria pollutants CO2/FC/ECAER/EAER/Rcd a #3: Phase average value as final value after third test. ICE, NOVC HEV OVC HEV CS N/A(R1+R2+R3)/3 x AFN/A OVC HEV CDN/A(R1+R2+R3)/3 x AF(R1+R2+R3)/3 PEVN/A(R1+R2+R3)/3 x AF(R1+R2+R3)/3 #4: Phase average value as final value after second test. ICE, NOVC HEV OVC HEV CS N/A(R1+R2)/2 x AF2N/A OVC HEV CDN/A(R1+R2)/2 x AF2(R1+R2)/2 PEVN/A(R1+R2)/2 x AF2(R1+R2)/2 Proposal, An adjustment to each phase value in order to correlate with its cycle value is not necessary (i.e. AF = AF2 = 1.0). Arithmetic mean of phase value to be used as a final phase value. Justification, A. Error will be restricted by dCO2 criteria within certain range, B. Some values don’t correlate with cycle value by nature, C. avoid burden and keep GTR simple.

#27-3 Averaging method * All “CO2” should be replaced by “EC” for PEV with the unit of “Wh/km” Potentially, AF2 can be calculated as follows for example. However we propose not to use this formula but using AF/AF2 to be 1.0 to make GTR simple.

#27-4 Independence of the determination flow 1st testPass -completedFail(average)Pass -completed Final valueAverage of twoDeclared value 2nd testFail to 90%Pass(average) Flow A:Criteria pollutants Flow B: CO2/FC/EC Flow C: AER/EAER/Rcda example A 1st testFail to 90%Pass -completed Final valueAverage of three 2nd testPass -completedPass(average)Fail(average) Flow A:Criteria pollutants Flow B: CO2/FC/EC Flow C: AER/EAER/Rcda example B 3rd testPassFail(average)Pass(average) Use all valid test results for the calculation for final value. Re-test is allowed up to three times if failed at 1st or 2nd test. In case of fail at 2nd test after the same flow completed at 1st test, retest should be allowed up to 3rd test.

EU proposal for CO2Japan proposal for CO2 #27-5 Re-declare Use declared value Declared - 0.9%(σ) %(σ/2) [%] +/- 0.0% 1st test (dCO2_1)2nd test (dCO2_2)1st and 2nd test Use declared value Re-declared allowed Re-declare is allowed only if manufacturer re-declares a declared value to be worse than initial declared value.

#27-5 worst case emission test? Vehicle HVehicle LVehicle M emission For example, vehicle M equips a lower efficient catalyst than vehicle H. The vehicle M’s emission can exceed standard. EM STD Cycle energy High efficient catalyst poor efficient catalyst How should we handle this case? Should vehicle M be tested at TA process or not? Highest cycle energy lower cycle energy

Discussion points for CO2 # Purpose PointsApr.May.Jun.Jul.Sep. IWG#10TFIWG#11TFIWG#12 1 Criteria pollutants/CO 2/Range Criteria values. (i.e. dp/dco2/dr) 2 Criteria pollutants/CO 2/Range Number of flow charts and parameters to be used in the flow 3 Criteria pollutants/CO 2/Range Averaging method for phase specific and whole cycle value. 4 Criteria pollutants/CO 2/Range Independence of the determination flow 5 CO2/Range Re-declare allowed or not. 6 Criteria pollutants Which Selectable mode should be used. (Worst case emission should be tested?)

END

#27-3 Averaging method * All “CO2” should be replaced by “EC” for PEV with the unit of “Wh/km”

#27-4 Independence of the determination flow 1st testFail to 90%Pass(completed) 2nd testPass(completed)Not used Flow A:Criteria pollutants Flow B: CO2/FC/EC Flow C: AER/EAER/Rcda Final valueAverage of twodeclared value 1st testPass(completed)Fail Flow A:Criteria pollutants Flow B: CO2/FC/EC Flow C: AER/EAER/Rcda 3rd testFail to 90%Not usedFail(completed) 2nd testPassPass(completed)Fail Final value1st test resultdeclared valueAverage of three example A example B Proposal: If a determination flow chart is completed, then the determination flow chart is independent from the others. (i.e. not affected by the results which are performed after the completion.) initial proposal rejected at TF